Rutherford and Latham in New Zealand Test squad

Hamish Rutherford and Tom Latham, both sons of former New Zealand Test players, will vie for one of the opening slots in the opening Test against England in Dunedin. Bruce Martin, the 32-year-old left-arm spinner, could also make his debut although there remains a chance that New Zealand will field an all-pace attack.

Martin Guptill's injuries - hamstring followed by thumb surgery - and Brendon McCullum's decision to drop down to No. 5 have created two opening vacancies. Peter Fulton, 34, will take one of the slots following an impressive Plunket Shield tournament in which he made 902 runs at 56.37 to leave him as the second-highest scorer. He last played a Test in 2009 but was due to open against South Africa before the recurrence of a knee injury forced him home. Either of the uncapped left-handers will join him.

Rutherford, 23, made his international debut in the Twenty20s against England and then replaced Guptill in the one-day squad. He has an overall first-class average of 42.42 and his previous three four-day innings for Otago, back in late January before he faced England, brought 90, 162 and 28.

Latham, 20, the son of Rod who played four Tests, is a wicketkeeper-batsman - which means New Zealand could field three glovemen in their XI including McCullum and BJ Watling - who has played eight ODIs and three T20s. He has been selected despite an uninspiring Plunket Shield where he made 480 runs in eight matches at 33.07.

Mike Hesson, the New Zealand coach, said: "We picked Peter to tour South Africa and he would have played there if he hadn't been injured. That leaves young Hamish and Tom to battle for the other opening spot. They've been in good form and are both products of our successful New Zealand A programme."

Rutherford and Latham will get the chance to face England for the New Zealand XI in Queenstown from February 27 and there is one place remaining in the Test squad which will go to a fast bowler playing in that match which means a likely call-up for either Mark Gillespie or Neil Wagner.

Tim Southee, who returned to action in the one-day series following a thumb injury, Doug Bracewell and Trent Boult are the established members of the bowling attack. Martin has been preferred over Jeetan Patel, the offspinner, for the slow-bowling place in the squad in the continued absence of Daniel Vettori. He sat on the bench during the South Africa Test series and although his 32 Plunket Shield wickets this season cost over 40 he is highly regarded on the domestic circuit.

Meanwhile, Luke Ronchi, the Wellington wicketkeeper, who had made a strong claim for a Test call-up by averaging 62.07 this season after qualifying for New Zealand, has been ruled out of the tour match in Queenstown with a hamstring injury he picked up in the final round of four-day matches. Watling, the Test wicketkeeper, takes his place which will provide him the chance to recover some form after a lean one-day series.

Bruce Martin? 10 wickets for 691 runs, so far in 2013. Zero wickets from his last 2 first class matches. He must be being picked to hold up an end, as he hasn't exactly been in the form of his life for some time. I have a feeling we'll be playing 4 seamers anyway, though you never know.

Rutherford is a promising young player, as is Latham, but right now they haven't actually proven themselves ready. We have a habit of picking players before they are ready, and then punishing them later once they are ready (ie Redmond, should never have played when he did, was a terrible pick, now he's ready he doesn't get picked due to his poor form for NZ when he wasn't ready to be picked anyway).

Rutherford has averaged about 40 this season while his opening partner Redmond has averaged about 55. I think a lot of Rutherford's runs were due to some mentoring at the other end, would have loved to see him get a few more hundreds before getting thrown in the fire like this.

Min2000
on February 24, 2013, 3:41 GMT

So Fulton to open and Rutherford and Latham will duke it out for the other spot?

Peter Fulton has been in form domestically, but he has struggled to step up at test level. Will that change against the second best test attack in the game?

Rutherford has played in every game (8 times) on this tour and their bowlers have totally worked him out. They bowl short at his body and he can't score - pressure builds and he gets out.

Is Tom Latham even an opener? He looks like a talent but do we really want to throw a 20-year old kid in first against this English team?

If you look around the domestic scene there are lots of players that open -- McCullum, Flynn, Rutherford, Cachopa, Fulton, Redmond, How, Raval, Papps, Guptill (when not injured)

I would have gone with Flynn. But Redmond has never really been given a proper chance -- he's scored 3 hundreds and 6 fifties this season. Papps is another that they could have looked at.

Rar0
on February 25, 2013, 23:24 GMT

To be completely honest I am very happy with this team. Yes I would love to see Guptil and Vettori playing but sadly we can't have them. Watling shouldn't open and deserves his spot down at number 6 or seven as he has proven over the past year. Fulton isn't a bad option, and has just edged out Redmond (unlucky for him). Fulton has made the most.
As for the Rutherford vs Lathem debate: Rutherford has had a better run in domestic cricket averaging around 6 runs higher per innings and converting more scores into 100's and further.. Latham deserves a change but has a lot of time left in his career, however I don't think he is ready to be a test opener.
The one thing missing from this team is an allrounder to bat at number 8 and be our spin bowler or 4th seamer.
My team: Fulton, Rutherford, Williamson, Taylor, McCullum, Brownlie, Watling, Bracewell, Southee, Boult, Wagner/Ellis or Franklin (at 8 not a batsmen)

LewisDuckworth
on February 25, 2013, 21:24 GMT

I'm sorry but what ever happened to picking the most in form players available?

Fulton makes sense and I have no doubt that Rutherford will be a good player, but on domestic form Redmond, Papps, Raval & How are all ahead of him at this time and should have been rewarded accordingly.

I have no issue with Martin being picked, he's been the best performed spinner this season, 32 wickets in 10 matches @ 40.40 with an economy rate of 3.16 is streets ahead of Nethula 22 wickets in 8 matches @ 36.95, economy of 3.53 and Sodhi 20 wickets in 10 matches @ 44.80, economy rate of 4.07.

If Ronchi was fully fit (hamstring) I'd of gone with him over Watling and given BJ first crack at openning due to his impressive batting in South Africa. No offence to BJ but Ronchi's a better batsman and keeper. And as mentioned elsewhere what happens when Ryder comes back with McCullum taking himself out of openning? Could Ryder potentially open the batting? I suspect not...

amclean
on February 25, 2013, 16:44 GMT

Two new openers - how fab! Nice to see BMac picking his own spot again after making such a fuss over wanting to open. And what happens when Ryder comes back? Utterly selfish decision by the captain and coach.

kiwicricketnut
on February 25, 2013, 9:33 GMT

The reason we loose so many tests are our batsman are too aggressive and our bowlers are too defensive. We have to swap this around some how, we pick too many holding up an end type bowlers like the vettori's, martin's, arnel's, instead of go for the throat types, then we pick our batters on the back of limited over form and wonder why they dont have the temperment or technique for test cricket. My team if fit 1. T.LATHAM 2. D.BROWNLIE 3. K.WILLIAMSON 4. R.TAYLOR 5. B.MCCULLUM 6. CARL. CACHOPA 7. B.WATLING 8. T.SOUTHEE 9. I.SOHDI 10. A.MILNE 11. T.BOULT. Of coarse straight swap with cachopa once ryder comes back, lathams talent is worth the punt, the best player of quick bowling and worst player of spin opening in brownlie and sohdi actually turns the ball.

Glenn10
on February 25, 2013, 8:14 GMT

For once, its not a bad team. Lacks a real fast bowler, but hey those who can are all injured, so its not worth discussing.
No one seems keen on young Rutherford, but in the tests I think he'll take his time. He seemed to get out in the ODI's when he thought he had to score faster. I think now is a good a time to put him in. Redmond has an average technique and has had a couple of chances to shine and hasn't.
The middle order does look allot more solid and hopefully can score a few runs.
Taking 20 wickets will be an issue, but if it swings we may do OK. Bruce Martin is an interesting call, should have played the last test in SA, but now can't take a wicket to save himself. Sodhi might be worth an experiment if Martin fails. I am also glad the selectors have finally realized Franklin is not a test standard player and that Flynn isn't either. sadly it took a while for the penny to drop.
Although not anywhere near as good as he was as a bowler, we will miss Vettori's all round ability.

dalboy12
on February 24, 2013, 21:42 GMT

With the injuries I like this team - Fulton is a temporary selection and just edges out Redmond. Don't agree with calls for Flynn he has had so many chances. and barely averages 25. The English will bowl short to both Fulton and Rutherford who will need to patient and wear them down if they can. At least with McCullum and Taylor in the middle we have a bit of strength there with Bronwnlie and Williamsom as well. Martin is the next spinner of the block, they seem to be going through each and every spinner in the country and give them a couple of tests, drop them and then on to the next one. What are they going to do when they run out of different spinners to select - though Patel had to go, just wondering about what has happened to Astle and Nethula?

Min2000
on February 24, 2013, 19:33 GMT

I don't have anything against Fulton, but we need someone who will put pressure back on the English bowlers. I can see Two-Metre-Peter fighting hard but don't expect to see runs flowing from his bat.

I would have gone with Flynn and McCullum to open. I know McCullum should bat at 5 but under the circumstances (no Guptill or Ryder at the top of the order) I would have left him opening just for this series.

Williamson, Taylor and Brownlie are obvious choices at 3, 4 and 5. I'd have Latham batting 6 with Ronchi at 7. Bruce Martin is just going to try and hold up and end - he's a temporary solution to the "Vettori issue" which will hopefully be sorted out in month or two. My seam attack would be Southee, Boult and Gillespie.

Rutherford needs more time. I'd like to see him (and Bracewell) playing in England for a season, to expose him to that professionalism of week in-week out County Cricket.

fnarr
on February 24, 2013, 19:06 GMT

Good selection, on the whole. Fulton (along with Ryder) was a standout batsman in the first half of the Plunket Shield (the season was divided by the T20 tournament), after reinventing himself as an opener. He would have played in South Africa if he had not been injured. He has continued to perform well in domestic cricket and deserves his place. I would probably have gone for Redmond over Rutherford, but can understand the desire to blend youth with experience.

After touring South Africa (without playing), BP Martin is next in line for the spinner's spot once Patel has been (deservedly) dropped. Still, I'd be tempted to go in with four seamers (+ Williamson), since that is where NZ's strength lies -- just don't think NZ are ever going to spin England out.

Tom Latham is the surprising selection, since he hasn't been opening for Canterbury and hasn't had a great season overall. Still, he'll probably be carrying the drinks. There is no doubt he is an exciting prospect for the future.

on February 25, 2013, 1:11 GMT

Bruce Martin? 10 wickets for 691 runs, so far in 2013. Zero wickets from his last 2 first class matches. He must be being picked to hold up an end, as he hasn't exactly been in the form of his life for some time. I have a feeling we'll be playing 4 seamers anyway, though you never know.

Rutherford is a promising young player, as is Latham, but right now they haven't actually proven themselves ready. We have a habit of picking players before they are ready, and then punishing them later once they are ready (ie Redmond, should never have played when he did, was a terrible pick, now he's ready he doesn't get picked due to his poor form for NZ when he wasn't ready to be picked anyway).

Rutherford has averaged about 40 this season while his opening partner Redmond has averaged about 55. I think a lot of Rutherford's runs were due to some mentoring at the other end, would have loved to see him get a few more hundreds before getting thrown in the fire like this.

Min2000
on February 24, 2013, 3:41 GMT

So Fulton to open and Rutherford and Latham will duke it out for the other spot?

Peter Fulton has been in form domestically, but he has struggled to step up at test level. Will that change against the second best test attack in the game?

Rutherford has played in every game (8 times) on this tour and their bowlers have totally worked him out. They bowl short at his body and he can't score - pressure builds and he gets out.

Is Tom Latham even an opener? He looks like a talent but do we really want to throw a 20-year old kid in first against this English team?

If you look around the domestic scene there are lots of players that open -- McCullum, Flynn, Rutherford, Cachopa, Fulton, Redmond, How, Raval, Papps, Guptill (when not injured)

I would have gone with Flynn. But Redmond has never really been given a proper chance -- he's scored 3 hundreds and 6 fifties this season. Papps is another that they could have looked at.

Rar0
on February 25, 2013, 23:24 GMT

To be completely honest I am very happy with this team. Yes I would love to see Guptil and Vettori playing but sadly we can't have them. Watling shouldn't open and deserves his spot down at number 6 or seven as he has proven over the past year. Fulton isn't a bad option, and has just edged out Redmond (unlucky for him). Fulton has made the most.
As for the Rutherford vs Lathem debate: Rutherford has had a better run in domestic cricket averaging around 6 runs higher per innings and converting more scores into 100's and further.. Latham deserves a change but has a lot of time left in his career, however I don't think he is ready to be a test opener.
The one thing missing from this team is an allrounder to bat at number 8 and be our spin bowler or 4th seamer.
My team: Fulton, Rutherford, Williamson, Taylor, McCullum, Brownlie, Watling, Bracewell, Southee, Boult, Wagner/Ellis or Franklin (at 8 not a batsmen)

LewisDuckworth
on February 25, 2013, 21:24 GMT

I'm sorry but what ever happened to picking the most in form players available?

Fulton makes sense and I have no doubt that Rutherford will be a good player, but on domestic form Redmond, Papps, Raval & How are all ahead of him at this time and should have been rewarded accordingly.

I have no issue with Martin being picked, he's been the best performed spinner this season, 32 wickets in 10 matches @ 40.40 with an economy rate of 3.16 is streets ahead of Nethula 22 wickets in 8 matches @ 36.95, economy of 3.53 and Sodhi 20 wickets in 10 matches @ 44.80, economy rate of 4.07.

If Ronchi was fully fit (hamstring) I'd of gone with him over Watling and given BJ first crack at openning due to his impressive batting in South Africa. No offence to BJ but Ronchi's a better batsman and keeper. And as mentioned elsewhere what happens when Ryder comes back with McCullum taking himself out of openning? Could Ryder potentially open the batting? I suspect not...

amclean
on February 25, 2013, 16:44 GMT

Two new openers - how fab! Nice to see BMac picking his own spot again after making such a fuss over wanting to open. And what happens when Ryder comes back? Utterly selfish decision by the captain and coach.

kiwicricketnut
on February 25, 2013, 9:33 GMT

The reason we loose so many tests are our batsman are too aggressive and our bowlers are too defensive. We have to swap this around some how, we pick too many holding up an end type bowlers like the vettori's, martin's, arnel's, instead of go for the throat types, then we pick our batters on the back of limited over form and wonder why they dont have the temperment or technique for test cricket. My team if fit 1. T.LATHAM 2. D.BROWNLIE 3. K.WILLIAMSON 4. R.TAYLOR 5. B.MCCULLUM 6. CARL. CACHOPA 7. B.WATLING 8. T.SOUTHEE 9. I.SOHDI 10. A.MILNE 11. T.BOULT. Of coarse straight swap with cachopa once ryder comes back, lathams talent is worth the punt, the best player of quick bowling and worst player of spin opening in brownlie and sohdi actually turns the ball.

Glenn10
on February 25, 2013, 8:14 GMT

For once, its not a bad team. Lacks a real fast bowler, but hey those who can are all injured, so its not worth discussing.
No one seems keen on young Rutherford, but in the tests I think he'll take his time. He seemed to get out in the ODI's when he thought he had to score faster. I think now is a good a time to put him in. Redmond has an average technique and has had a couple of chances to shine and hasn't.
The middle order does look allot more solid and hopefully can score a few runs.
Taking 20 wickets will be an issue, but if it swings we may do OK. Bruce Martin is an interesting call, should have played the last test in SA, but now can't take a wicket to save himself. Sodhi might be worth an experiment if Martin fails. I am also glad the selectors have finally realized Franklin is not a test standard player and that Flynn isn't either. sadly it took a while for the penny to drop.
Although not anywhere near as good as he was as a bowler, we will miss Vettori's all round ability.

dalboy12
on February 24, 2013, 21:42 GMT

With the injuries I like this team - Fulton is a temporary selection and just edges out Redmond. Don't agree with calls for Flynn he has had so many chances. and barely averages 25. The English will bowl short to both Fulton and Rutherford who will need to patient and wear them down if they can. At least with McCullum and Taylor in the middle we have a bit of strength there with Bronwnlie and Williamsom as well. Martin is the next spinner of the block, they seem to be going through each and every spinner in the country and give them a couple of tests, drop them and then on to the next one. What are they going to do when they run out of different spinners to select - though Patel had to go, just wondering about what has happened to Astle and Nethula?

Min2000
on February 24, 2013, 19:33 GMT

I don't have anything against Fulton, but we need someone who will put pressure back on the English bowlers. I can see Two-Metre-Peter fighting hard but don't expect to see runs flowing from his bat.

I would have gone with Flynn and McCullum to open. I know McCullum should bat at 5 but under the circumstances (no Guptill or Ryder at the top of the order) I would have left him opening just for this series.

Williamson, Taylor and Brownlie are obvious choices at 3, 4 and 5. I'd have Latham batting 6 with Ronchi at 7. Bruce Martin is just going to try and hold up and end - he's a temporary solution to the "Vettori issue" which will hopefully be sorted out in month or two. My seam attack would be Southee, Boult and Gillespie.

Rutherford needs more time. I'd like to see him (and Bracewell) playing in England for a season, to expose him to that professionalism of week in-week out County Cricket.

fnarr
on February 24, 2013, 19:06 GMT

Good selection, on the whole. Fulton (along with Ryder) was a standout batsman in the first half of the Plunket Shield (the season was divided by the T20 tournament), after reinventing himself as an opener. He would have played in South Africa if he had not been injured. He has continued to perform well in domestic cricket and deserves his place. I would probably have gone for Redmond over Rutherford, but can understand the desire to blend youth with experience.

After touring South Africa (without playing), BP Martin is next in line for the spinner's spot once Patel has been (deservedly) dropped. Still, I'd be tempted to go in with four seamers (+ Williamson), since that is where NZ's strength lies -- just don't think NZ are ever going to spin England out.

Tom Latham is the surprising selection, since he hasn't been opening for Canterbury and hasn't had a great season overall. Still, he'll probably be carrying the drinks. There is no doubt he is an exciting prospect for the future.

With Williamson and Raval to provide a bit of spin and cachopa with a few medium pacers.

class9ryan
on February 24, 2013, 14:14 GMT

Probably waiting for a full strength Kiwi side to pay ... too many injuries are just hurting them. my Kiwi batting line-up would probably be - Guptill, McCullum, Ryder, Willamson, Taylor, Brownlie, Ronchi

shooting
on February 24, 2013, 14:00 GMT

Would of had Daniel Flynn over Latham.

R_U_4_REAL_NICK
on February 24, 2013, 13:59 GMT

I'm disappointed to see Franklin being left out, but I guessed it would be done as he's been off the boil lately in the shorter formats. I often hate the way selectors use form in the shorter formats to gauge expected form in tests, when in reality there's such a vast difference. Franklin can be a more-than-useful all-rounder in tests, and I suspect he might be back in contention before the end of the series. Dan Vettori will be missed... recover soon!

nzcricket174
on February 24, 2013, 12:23 GMT

The selectors made a big mistake when they picked Rutherford for the ODIs. It has surely affected his form and given a glimpse for the English bowlers. Neil Broom should be given another chance, but his last selection for the Black Caps probably has affected his confidence.

tauranga
on February 24, 2013, 11:42 GMT

Surely the obvious call is McCallum to open. England had this situation with Alec Stewart. With the prospect of there being 3 Keepers in the squad there really is no need from McCullum to keep.

RichDeGroen
on February 24, 2013, 10:57 GMT

So. McCullum decides to be an test opener in spite of a raft of former players saying he's not suited to the role and should bat 5. McCullum publicly insults Martin Crowe on live radio after Crowe made a statement saying he should bat 5. Years later after a miserable career a test opener, and a captaincy coup to ensure his selection in the team as a batter at all, McCullum decides he should bat 5. Time for a public apology to Martin Crowe?

Personally I'm utterly sick of the national indulgence in this petulant little character. By rights, this series should be McCullum's last opportunity as a test player, and he should be a straight shootout with Brownlie for the 6 spot once Ryder returns to bat 5. The continuing problem of the 'captaincy saga' is that there will never be such accountability for McCullum now.

Fydd
on February 24, 2013, 10:51 GMT

Fulton does not inspire confidence. Last time I saw him he was a front foot plonker. The other options do not inspire confidence. English bowlers must be licking their lips, even Broad who seems v average. Given English bowlers will continue to thud it in short, and given the better quality and bouncier pitches in NZ of the recent era, NZ really needs to develop batters who can play off the back foot. NZ's only players who generally play off the back foot well are Williamson and Brownlie. Yet most players seem to be stuck with a technique more suited for slow and low pitches. We will continue to struggle against sides with good quick bowlers until back foot play is developed and encouraged.

on February 24, 2013, 10:43 GMT

I would of gone with Jeet Raval over Tom Latham. He is a specialist opener that has been in great form and he offers a decent part time spin option.

on February 24, 2013, 10:32 GMT

they have dropped Franklin about time, he has had so many opportunities to cement a place in the team and has not taken them. Now the topic of opening is always one of much frustration in NZ cricket. I would have chosen Flynn and Fulton. I think the selectors really were forced to choose Fulton after picking him in Sth Africa and then getting injured. No one else has stood up to say "pick me" since. England have already worked out Rutherford during one day series so I think that was a poor decision to pick him for the tests. How, Papps, Redmond, Fulton are all option but they are around 33 yrs old so a combination of these options is not looking to the future. Flynn at 27 yrs old would have been a gd choice been around but has a few yrs left in the tank. He had a poor series of SAfrica but who did not???
I would like to see Brownlie given a chance to open batting - I think he has a good temperament and is a gd player of pace bowling, it's against top spinners he looks lost.

on February 24, 2013, 9:25 GMT

David Brumby: Ronchi is out with a hamstring injury

on February 24, 2013, 9:13 GMT

Incredible decision to bring back Peter Fulton aged 34 with a Test average of 21!!!

gurn79
on February 24, 2013, 9:03 GMT

So 23 year old Hamish Rutherford has been picked to play test cricket for
New Zealand.
Hamish is the son of former New Zealand captain Ken Rutherford. Most
of us would recall Ken who played for the Kiwis in the 1987 and 1992
world cups.
I am not sure when India is going to play its next test match against
New Zealand, but if they do so in the near future, one Mr.Sachin
Ramesh Tendulkar will probably achieve the remarkable feat of sporting
longevity to have played against both a father and his son from an
opponent test side from different eras. What more, great man? :)

hhillbumper
on February 24, 2013, 8:57 GMT

james Franklin always looks like a proper player.he can bat well and with a bit more pace could bowl well.Have seen him in county cricket and he always seems pretty good quality

on February 24, 2013, 8:23 GMT

Guess that is the end of Chris Martin then.

Nzisaminnowinwaiting
on February 24, 2013, 7:57 GMT

Franklin,Ellis and Elliot need to be dropped for all formats. Just not up to it. The selectors have been getting it so wrong example Neil Broom great batsmen was averaging 45 overall in first class so they pick him for t20 and ODI which is his weaker formats. Now Rutherford got picked for ODI team average of next to nothing in domestic, think good move for tests though, but has the ODI seris effected his form. We got to do something to change the way we going or we will have minnow status.

on February 24, 2013, 7:37 GMT

i think they have never ever given redmond the go he has deserved.
Yes he hasn't done that well when given a chance but his chances have been fleeting.
On form I would have given him the nod above Tod Latham.
Don't get me wrong Tod Latham deserves a chance but I would probably start him in the limited overs stuff, his record in 1st class is only in the mid 30s this year average wise.

Baxter_P
on February 24, 2013, 7:20 GMT

The issue with Fulton is, if you honestly assess his ability and technique (and factor in his past form at test level), the most we can except is that he will occupy the crease for 2 hours (a session) and eke out 20 runs. Perhaps that's why he's in the XI. Inevitably, however, one of their pace bowlers will get him out and I just cannot see him ever being on top of the England bowlers. A more likely scenario is we will be at least one down in the first 10 overs more often than not, which exposes Kane and Ross too early. Instead of selecting a known quantity who we know is not test standard, I would have preferred we took a punt of an unknown quantity who could be test standard (if not now, but in the next 1-2 seasons). On that basis, Jeet Raval should have been in ahead of Fulton.

electric_loco_WAP4
on February 24, 2013, 6:45 GMT

All the best for NZ..... though your team is not running 'hot' for some while now ,it is
understandable the fans are bit disgruntled...but don't worry...you've got support
from all of Aus and that makes those wishing your team well much more than youw'd
ever imagine!! Go on and crush the Poms in the test series ...tough luck for the ODIs
though... let go of a great chance of sweeping the series after crushing them in that
fantastic 1st ODI... Attack them and the test series is yours!!...and what a win it will
be for NZ Cricket after a while !!....Need inspiration?? Look no where but the famous 3-0 pasting of the Poms by Pak in U.A.E last year....of course the mighty Aus' deeds
vs old enemy needs no mentioning...

on February 24, 2013, 6:16 GMT

Why is there no mention of Chris Martin at all? Is he injured or dropped ?

on February 24, 2013, 5:48 GMT

No wonder NZ cant beat anyone in cricket when you dont pick the aussie Ronchi. even as a keeper he is a better batsman then any other kiwi in the side.

Erebus26
on February 24, 2013, 5:48 GMT

Rutherford deserved his call-up, however I didn't think his call up to the limited overs squad should've happened. His record in T20 and one day cricket is poor and that showed against England tbh. I don't think the harsh assessment by Min2000 was warranted though. Rutherford was out trying to force the scoring rather than bowlers working his technique out. He seemed to have a limited array of scoring shots and that told.

Lakpj
on February 24, 2013, 5:42 GMT

I was hoping NZ would win @least the ODI or the T20 series. They lost both, so theoretically they have no chance in the tests. 2-0 to England, if things go well even a 3-0 is on the cards.

Bring_back_Wright
on February 24, 2013, 5:37 GMT

@ Min2000 - Redmond has played 7 tests, Fulton 10, but their averages are similar. Do those extra 3 tests count as Fultons "proper chance"? Fulton has scored 3 hundreds and 7 fifties this year. Pretty similar records really, except their overall FC averages where Fulton averages nearly 8 more than Redmond. Don't get me wrong, I agree Redmond should be under consideration, I just think it's unfair to dismiss Fulton like that.

How, Flynn, and Papps have also been tried without much success, yet they are some of the top performers in FC. That doesn't mean they aren't the best for the job. No matter their age, I think we should be picking the players most likely to do well in this series - i.e., in form. I'm not convinced either Rutherford or Latham have proved they deserve their place in the test team yet (but I do wish them both well).

For me, Fulton, Flynn, and Redmond would have been my top 3 choices to open, but I know many will disagree insisting youth is the way to go.

pt_pt
on February 24, 2013, 4:49 GMT

NZ have to look for young talented players moving forward, so Rutherford and Latham are good choices. Not so sure about Fulton and Martin. But is saying that, they all have a chance now to prove everyone wrong that is against their sections in the team. Let's see in the first test how it goes. Good luck all.

Papamoa542
on February 24, 2013, 4:43 GMT

Much rather see flynn and bj open ronchi come in at 7 as keeper. Boult, Gilespee, Southee, Bracewell as bowlers, should not need a spinner on nz pitch and these 4 are better than B Martin, Williamson 5th holding bowler. Good to see no Franklin

Chetan007
on February 24, 2013, 4:42 GMT

My team for NZ XI is Tom, Williamson, Ross Taylor, Dean Brownlie, Brendon McCullum, Hamish Rutherford, Peter Fulton, Doug Bracewell, Tim Southee, Bruce Martin, Trent Boult. I had selected the team from the selected list by selectors. But, I would like to add Martin, J Patel, Ronchi, Nathan, Franklin, Vettori, Neil Wagner. Give Williamson some chances to open the inning. He might have a great success there ans since McCullum now down to no. 5, there's a need of one good batsmen to open the inning with experience, I think Williamson is best suited to that. Than come Ross Taylor to number 3. As a team needs their best batsman to come at that place. 4th Should be Brownlie to provide stability to the team if needed. Then McCullum so that if team needs to score freely or longer inning, he can provide that. Than team needs a hard hitter with technique and in the present squad I didn't find any so selected Harmish. Than comes the allrounder and bowlers.

BenGundry
on February 24, 2013, 4:16 GMT

I'm amazed - has NZ changed their selectors? Or did they finally realise that they need to make changes in the batting? So different than the last few test squads. No all-rounder at all (a bit tough on Munro) and an extra batsman - instead of the usual squad of 7 bowlers and no spare batsman.

Fulton has earned a recall and has a better 1st class record than Redmond and Papps (who have both had great seasons). Not sure why Ravel didn't even get a go in Queensland - is it because his father didn't play for NZ?

nzcricket174
on February 24, 2013, 4:06 GMT

How could they select Latham over Ronchi?

gothetaniwha
on February 24, 2013, 4:05 GMT

Everything wrong with NZ cricket is summed up with the selection of Fulton ,Has he been picked for the future ? NO He's pushing 35 .We keep going back to players that have failed time and again . Go with young Rutherford & Lathem and back them for 20 tests .

landl47
on February 24, 2013, 3:51 GMT

The longer the matches get, the more difficult it is to snatch an upset win. Unlike the Pakistan tests last year, England this time has prepared thoroughly and is acclimatised- indeed, the conditions will suit England very well. It's hard to see anything but a series victory for England unless the weather intervenes.

However, New Zealand did manage to pull out a win and tie the series in Australia on their last visit so no-one should be taking them lightly. Here's hoping both sides play their best cricket and it's an entertaining series.

on February 24, 2013, 3:43 GMT

Don't know why Latham was picked. NZ cricket need to start picking players based on their records in each format. Therefore Rutherford shouldn't have played the ODI series, Taylor shouldn't play T20, etc. It will give players motivation and realism to work towards being fantastic in one or two formats. Hope Rutherford performs well in the tests as we are running out of opening options. With all injured players fit and available my team would be Guptill Rutherford Williamson Taylor Mccullum Brownlie Watling Southee Bracewell Boult and either Bruce Martin or Todd Astle

corzaNZ
on February 24, 2013, 3:37 GMT

The good news of Franklin finally getting dropped kinda gets out weighed by the recall of Fulton... a 34 year old who averages 20 in tests is a not way forward for us, if he fails (again) he will be dropped and at best if he does well he will get 2 years max with him being injury prone my confidence isnt to high on this being very successful... but hey lets hope im wrong

on February 25, 2013, 1:11 GMT

Bruce Martin? 10 wickets for 691 runs, so far in 2013. Zero wickets from his last 2 first class matches. He must be being picked to hold up an end, as he hasn't exactly been in the form of his life for some time. I have a feeling we'll be playing 4 seamers anyway, though you never know.

Rutherford is a promising young player, as is Latham, but right now they haven't actually proven themselves ready. We have a habit of picking players before they are ready, and then punishing them later once they are ready (ie Redmond, should never have played when he did, was a terrible pick, now he's ready he doesn't get picked due to his poor form for NZ when he wasn't ready to be picked anyway).

Rutherford has averaged about 40 this season while his opening partner Redmond has averaged about 55. I think a lot of Rutherford's runs were due to some mentoring at the other end, would have loved to see him get a few more hundreds before getting thrown in the fire like this.

Min2000
on February 24, 2013, 3:41 GMT

So Fulton to open and Rutherford and Latham will duke it out for the other spot?

Peter Fulton has been in form domestically, but he has struggled to step up at test level. Will that change against the second best test attack in the game?

Rutherford has played in every game (8 times) on this tour and their bowlers have totally worked him out. They bowl short at his body and he can't score - pressure builds and he gets out.

Is Tom Latham even an opener? He looks like a talent but do we really want to throw a 20-year old kid in first against this English team?

If you look around the domestic scene there are lots of players that open -- McCullum, Flynn, Rutherford, Cachopa, Fulton, Redmond, How, Raval, Papps, Guptill (when not injured)

I would have gone with Flynn. But Redmond has never really been given a proper chance -- he's scored 3 hundreds and 6 fifties this season. Papps is another that they could have looked at.

corzaNZ
on February 24, 2013, 3:37 GMT

The good news of Franklin finally getting dropped kinda gets out weighed by the recall of Fulton... a 34 year old who averages 20 in tests is a not way forward for us, if he fails (again) he will be dropped and at best if he does well he will get 2 years max with him being injury prone my confidence isnt to high on this being very successful... but hey lets hope im wrong

on February 24, 2013, 3:43 GMT

Don't know why Latham was picked. NZ cricket need to start picking players based on their records in each format. Therefore Rutherford shouldn't have played the ODI series, Taylor shouldn't play T20, etc. It will give players motivation and realism to work towards being fantastic in one or two formats. Hope Rutherford performs well in the tests as we are running out of opening options. With all injured players fit and available my team would be Guptill Rutherford Williamson Taylor Mccullum Brownlie Watling Southee Bracewell Boult and either Bruce Martin or Todd Astle

landl47
on February 24, 2013, 3:51 GMT

The longer the matches get, the more difficult it is to snatch an upset win. Unlike the Pakistan tests last year, England this time has prepared thoroughly and is acclimatised- indeed, the conditions will suit England very well. It's hard to see anything but a series victory for England unless the weather intervenes.

However, New Zealand did manage to pull out a win and tie the series in Australia on their last visit so no-one should be taking them lightly. Here's hoping both sides play their best cricket and it's an entertaining series.

gothetaniwha
on February 24, 2013, 4:05 GMT

Everything wrong with NZ cricket is summed up with the selection of Fulton ,Has he been picked for the future ? NO He's pushing 35 .We keep going back to players that have failed time and again . Go with young Rutherford & Lathem and back them for 20 tests .

nzcricket174
on February 24, 2013, 4:06 GMT

How could they select Latham over Ronchi?

BenGundry
on February 24, 2013, 4:16 GMT

I'm amazed - has NZ changed their selectors? Or did they finally realise that they need to make changes in the batting? So different than the last few test squads. No all-rounder at all (a bit tough on Munro) and an extra batsman - instead of the usual squad of 7 bowlers and no spare batsman.

Fulton has earned a recall and has a better 1st class record than Redmond and Papps (who have both had great seasons). Not sure why Ravel didn't even get a go in Queensland - is it because his father didn't play for NZ?

Chetan007
on February 24, 2013, 4:42 GMT

My team for NZ XI is Tom, Williamson, Ross Taylor, Dean Brownlie, Brendon McCullum, Hamish Rutherford, Peter Fulton, Doug Bracewell, Tim Southee, Bruce Martin, Trent Boult. I had selected the team from the selected list by selectors. But, I would like to add Martin, J Patel, Ronchi, Nathan, Franklin, Vettori, Neil Wagner. Give Williamson some chances to open the inning. He might have a great success there ans since McCullum now down to no. 5, there's a need of one good batsmen to open the inning with experience, I think Williamson is best suited to that. Than come Ross Taylor to number 3. As a team needs their best batsman to come at that place. 4th Should be Brownlie to provide stability to the team if needed. Then McCullum so that if team needs to score freely or longer inning, he can provide that. Than team needs a hard hitter with technique and in the present squad I didn't find any so selected Harmish. Than comes the allrounder and bowlers.

Papamoa542
on February 24, 2013, 4:43 GMT

Much rather see flynn and bj open ronchi come in at 7 as keeper. Boult, Gilespee, Southee, Bracewell as bowlers, should not need a spinner on nz pitch and these 4 are better than B Martin, Williamson 5th holding bowler. Good to see no Franklin

pt_pt
on February 24, 2013, 4:49 GMT

NZ have to look for young talented players moving forward, so Rutherford and Latham are good choices. Not so sure about Fulton and Martin. But is saying that, they all have a chance now to prove everyone wrong that is against their sections in the team. Let's see in the first test how it goes. Good luck all.

Bring_back_Wright
on February 24, 2013, 5:37 GMT

@ Min2000 - Redmond has played 7 tests, Fulton 10, but their averages are similar. Do those extra 3 tests count as Fultons "proper chance"? Fulton has scored 3 hundreds and 7 fifties this year. Pretty similar records really, except their overall FC averages where Fulton averages nearly 8 more than Redmond. Don't get me wrong, I agree Redmond should be under consideration, I just think it's unfair to dismiss Fulton like that.

How, Flynn, and Papps have also been tried without much success, yet they are some of the top performers in FC. That doesn't mean they aren't the best for the job. No matter their age, I think we should be picking the players most likely to do well in this series - i.e., in form. I'm not convinced either Rutherford or Latham have proved they deserve their place in the test team yet (but I do wish them both well).

For me, Fulton, Flynn, and Redmond would have been my top 3 choices to open, but I know many will disagree insisting youth is the way to go.